Pathetic Bigots

Pathos & Bigotry: as the twittersphere trembles to the aftershocks of the Independence Referendum, I find myself reaching for these two words with increasing frequency.  I've just checked to make sure: at the time of writing I have yet to call anybody a pathetic bigot on Twitter.  But I have encountered plenty of pathetic bigots in the last few months. In fact I may have been guilty of some pathetic bigotry myself - I'm certainly willing to contemplate that possibility. What about you?

Pathos

If - like me - when you hear "Ethos, Logos and Pathos" you have an almost uncontrollable desire to say "don't forget d'Artagnan" then a little definitional refresher might help here;

So we can see that whilst referring to someone as pathetic might be interpreted as suggesting they are contemptible, it is equally valid as a way to describe somebody who's behaviour affects the emotion of pity.

Of course suggesting the position somebody holds makes them deserving of your pity might be seen as condescending (which means talking down to someone). As long as you're appropriately offended by my condescension rather than inappropriately offended by your perception of my contemptuousness then we can move on.


Bigot

Scotland is a country that suffers from significant level of religious bigotry, a bigotry that is unfortunately deeply ingrained in much of our football culture.  This means that to use the term bigot  can often create an inappropriate knee-jerk response. Let's turn to Chambers again;

I was going to illustrate this point with the example of Brian Souter who was shortlisted for Stonewall's "Bigot of the Year" award in 2011 for bankrolling the "Keep the Clause" campaign that urged Scottish voters not to repeal legislation in Scotland forbidding local authorities to ‘intentionally promote homosexuality’ (known as Section 2A in Scotland and Section 28 across the rest of the UK).

I was going to and then I remembered Mr Souter donated £1m to the SNP and was a vocal supporter of the Yes campaign, so I thought using that example might be seen by some as rather pathetic on my part.

So instead let me test the definition of bigot against my own behaviour. I could certainly be accused of being obstinately devoted to a particular set of ideas.  I hope I'm not blindly so and that my musings on this blog are testament to that - but I'm sure some would disagree. But for me the real kicker in this definition is the phrase dismissive towards others.

I can think of little more dismissive towards others than the position taken by those Yes voters who suggest that the firm majority of people who voted No were tricked into doing so, that the election must have been rigged, that No voters lack patriotic pride or don't care about poverty and inequality in our society.

In my last blog post (The Sovereign Will of the Scottish People) I wrote

• "false prospectus complaints aside, the absolute size of the Yes vote shows that many in our society feel any change at any cost would be better that their current lot.  That should - that must -  give us pause."
  

What I hope that statement illustrates is my belief that we mustn't be dismissive towards the concerns of those others who voted Yes.  I would hope that similarly those who voted Yes would not be dismissive of the concerns and convictions of those of us who voted No.

So the easiest way to avoid being a pathetic bigot is to remember that we can disagree strongly with others' opinions, we can argue that some of them may be ill-informed or misled, but we should never dismiss their concerns.

Unless they are simply being pathetic bigots, in which case we should just feel sorry for them. 

Scottish Independence: Pros & Cons

I've invested many hours in research and debate around the Scottish Independence Referendum debate; this is the simplest summary I can manage.

[If you click on this  you can view and download a pdf complete with links to the detailed blog posts]

This logic flow summarises the arguments for Independence that I've encountered, along with my (hopefully) logical and reasoned responses. Please don't switch off if I'm countering an argument you wouldn't make; trust me all the arguments I address here are widely used.

"We should choose who governs us": I cover this in detail here  > We Should Decide Who Governs Us

• Its about "Us & Them"
• This is about Trust: resentment of failures in the past, fear of failures in the future, often voiced as distrust of Westminster, Westminster Politics or the Political Elite
• The over-used "they say we're too wee, too poor, too stupid" rhetorical trope is often used in this context. I cover this here > Too Wee, Too Poor, Too Stupid; it should come as no surprise that the only people saying this are the pro-independence campaigners implying it's been said by "them"
• It remains unclear to me why substituting Holyrood for Westminster would change the fundamental nature of politics or create some new, more admirable, political elite.
• When pressed, this "Us & Them" theme is sometimes really more about Tories or the English; that Independence is a way of getting "them" out of our lives. 
• The McCrone report is often raised in this context. I cover this here > Trust & The McCrone Report. Put simply: I can't see why the fact that 39 years ago some politicians didn't leak a confidential memo that would have been politically unhelpful to them leads to the conclusion that we should break the Union now.
   
• Because it would be "A Better Democracy"
• I've argue at length here > We Should Decide Who Governs Us that a smaller democracy is not intrinsically a better democracy; that to think so is to fail to understand the very principles of representative democracy.
• There is a trade-off between the economic scale of a nation and the breadth of others' political opinions that have to be accommodated.  I'm not convinced that Hadrian's wall defines that ideal trade-off point. 
• There is an argument that the left-leaning political profile of the Scottish electorate would deliver a more stable political force in pursuit of Social Justice. For me this argument has merit, but needs to be considered within the context of the political and economic realities 
• It has to be believed despite the downsides of separation, not in denial off them
• Devolution is already delivering a large part of this
• Social Justice needs to be paid for: the economic realities of independence cannot be ignored (see below)
  

"So We Get Our Fair Share"

This is all about "Our Oil"; I cover the topic in some detail here > Oil & Gas (Part I); For Richer, For Poorer. I think the following is an analytically robust summary

• Looking back it's not appropriate to define our "fair share" as keeping all of "our" Oil & Gas revenue; being in a Union must be about pooling & sharing
• Even if you do the analysis assuming we should have kept "our" Oil & Gas revenue it's clear that the extra funds generated per capita have been effectively received back by greater public spending per capita in Scotland
• A corollary of this is that if you consider the economics of an Independent Scotland with all of "our" Oil & Gas revenue then we run a higher deficit (Public Spending greater than Tax Revenues) per capita  than the rest of the UK.  [Their is a separate argument relating to what that Public Expenditure has been on and whether an Independent Scotland would incur all of the spending in which it currently shares; we'll come back to that below]
• Getting "Our Fair Share" would not have made us better off in the past and - remembering we were in a Union - we've actually done pretty well out of the deal.
• Looking forwards (which is surely what we should be doing) we face declining Oil & Gas reserves and rising extraction costs.  Getting to keep our Oil & Gas revenues is not the answer to an independent Scotland's economic future

"Because We'll Be better Off"

Getting our geographic share of Oil & Gas will not make us better off.  Looking at GDP/Capita is overly-simplistic and flawed in so many ways (I cover this topic here > Look at GDP/Capita, Look at Ireland).  Clearly to understand the economic case for Independence we need to balance

• Economic Pros of independence
• "We'd stop spending money that we are currently burdened with our share of"
• Defence/Trident: for many this is a strong enough reason for Independence in and of itself.
• HS2:  this is a headline grabber for sure; but I would want to see a broader analysis of transport infrastructure costs and spending allocations before concluding that Scotland would save money by avoiding "projects like these"¹.
• House of Lords: an emotive topic but hardly a big financial consideration.
• "We'd negotiate with the EU putting Scotland's interests first." I've covered this at some length here > Independent Scotland and the EU.  Given the requirements for an Independent Scotland to renegotiate terms with the EU and achieve unanimous agreement from all member states its hard to envisage more upside than downside. The White Paper asserts that an iScotland can negotiate to remain in the EU without making any concessions on Euro or Schengen Area participation, while retaining the UK Rebate and other opt-outs and simultaneously improving our share of CAP payments, extending fishing rights etc. I don't believe there is an informed person in this debate who believes that is possible and I include in that the experts the SNP cite as being "on their side"
• Economic Cons of independence. I cover these (with a positive spin) here > The Positive Case for No
• Currency: their can be no doubt that this is a downside of independence, the only question is how much of a downside
• Strip aside the political posturing from the debate and the best case that can be argued involves de facto dollarisation whereby Scotland effectively cedes currency control to be able to maintain use of the pound.
• The jury is in on this one; it's a less stable economic structure than the one we currently enjoy as part of the United Kingdom and an independent Scotland would face a higher cost of debt
• The EU debate may well (some argue inevitably does) lead Scotland down a path of joining the Euro, of adopting a different currency from our largest trading partner (rUK)
• EU renegotiation. Covered in detail here > Independent Scotland and the EU and summarised above. The real politik of any such negotiation will leave Scotland worse off than today 
• Impact on trade with rUK. Covered in detail here > Independence & Scotland's Trade with rUK. Two Thirds of Scotland's exports go to rUK; there can only be economic (and employment) downside from separation
• Trade with rUK will become international trade: import–export. This, together with the likely divergence over time of tax, excise duty, regulatory and administrative regimes can only damage trade with rUK
• The longer term possibility of "one in, the other out" of EU and/or different currencies exacerbates this, createing risks for businesses considering investing in Scottish facilities serving rUK markets
• Impact on the Single Energy Market: a huge issue not (yet at least) much discussed in debate. We currently share a single transmission operator and shared transmission costs, as well as benefiting from UK wide renewables investment policies & security of supply.
• Cost of Splitting and recreating other shared assets: a recent hot topic, covered in part here: Lies, Damn Lies & Cost Estimates.  
• Includes: security and intelligence bodies, a Scottish Border and Migration Service and a Scottish Motor Services Agency, official reserves, the BBC and its archives, UK and GB-wide systems for administering welfare and taxation, intelligence sharing, mutual aid between police forces and health services, Jobcentre Plus, DWP and HMRC offices, the Crown Estate and the defence estate, overseas missions of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office etc.
• ICAS, in Scotland's Tax Future; Taxes Explained, estimate the costs of setting up an independent Scotland's Tax System alone could be well above £750m
• Global Diplomatic & Trade Networks:  the White Paper proposes "providing for a streamlined system of overseas representation".
• Separation of services with flat-rate UK-wide pricing where this doesn't reflect Scotland's true (higher) cost-to-serve: Royal Mail, Telecoms, Power, UK-wide retail chains, etc.

"Because We'll Manage the Economy Better"

To say the quality of the economic case presented in the White Paper is extremely weak would be generous. It beggars belief that nowhere in the 649 page tome have they found room to provide a summary of the costs of the promises made, let alone to show how the books would be balanced. In the absence of any reconciled numbers coming from those attempting to make the case for independence (which it's surely there duty to provide) others have had a go.  This has led to unhelpful spats and accusations of lies and misleading statements (See this post around the "one-off costs" debate > Lies, Damn Lies and Cost Estimates).

In the absence of any analysis from the Scottish Government the Institute for Fiscal Studies (a respected and impartial organisation) have recently published a statement Spending cuts or tax increases would be needed to pay for Independence White Paper giveaways in which they state

• "The White Paper outlined specific tax raising measures and spending cuts that would together save just under £500 million a year. On top of this there is an aspiration to raise a further £235 million through, as yet unspecified, measures to remove exemptions and reduce tax avoidance."
• "The spending increases and tax cuts described in the White Paper are more numerous and more costly – around £1.2 billion a year in the short term and potentially considerably more in the longer term if full aspirations for childcare and state pensions are met (although some policies may have dynamic behavioural effects that mean that they could partly pay for themselves)."

That's worth pausing on. The White Paper identifies £0.5bn tax raising and spending cuts to fund around £1.2bn spending increases and tax cuts.  Even allowing for 'as yet unspecified' measures and 'dynamic behavioural effects' its clear to even the most casual observer that the White Paper promises simply don't add up. Its hard to believe this approach will lead to a better managed economy.

There is also a lot of fuss made about the comparison with Norway and that we "should have an oil fund". I cover this in detail here > Oil & Gas (Part II): The Oil Fund. In simple summary: 

• To have created an Oil Fund we'd have needed to not spend the money.  We (the UK) did spend the money and - as we've shown - Scotland received it's fair share of that money (actually more than its fair share if you consider fair within the Union would mean to share equally on a per capita basis)
• It's all very well - with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight - to say "we could have had an oil fund". To do so would have involved tough public spending choices (as Norway made; for example healthcare there is not free at point of use).  The SNP were not arguing for this when it would have made a difference in the 1990s.
• In fact in the White Paper the SNP are not arguing for an Oil Fund now either: they state an Oil Fund "will be started once Scotland's overall budget deficit is reduced to below the level of long-run economic growth and when debt is on a downward trajectory". That hasn't been the case for any of the last 10 years and it's hard to seeing it being the case for an independent Scotland any time soon.

So the SNP's White Paper makes promises that don't add up and the rhetoric of debate is not supported with robust analysis. It would be a generous understatement to say that the case for an independent Scotland's economy being better managed has not been made.

To Create a Fairer Society

This is an aim that you are unlikely to find many disagreeing with, but the question is: will Independence deliver a fairer society?

This depends in part on your belief in economics, on whether or not you are concerned by the fact that the numbers simply don't stack up (see above from IFS). I certainly have not seen anything like a convincing case made for why Scotland would be better off separated from the Union.  Surely that burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those asking us to vote in favour of  independence? It's a burden that has not been met.

In fact - on the balance of the arguments I've seen and lay out in this blog - it seems clear to me that an independent Scotland would be economically worse off than a Scotland remaining within the Union. There are many laudable "social justice" aspirations in the White Paper but laying out these aspirations without showing how we could afford to deliver them is somewhat pointless.

I accept and agree that the independence argument is not just about economics.  I believe in creating a more socially just society.  I think there are many things that could and should be improved about the way our political system works.  But I don't believe that breaking the Union between Scotland and the rest of the UK will achieve those things; I don't believe that the economic realities can be ignored. I believe the Scottish Government's White Paper fails to present a coherent, logically consistent or economically robust argument in favour of independence.  It seems clear to me that delivering social justice will be harder without the benefits of Union.

The independence debate has highlighted concerns that many of use share about the way our country is run, about the social inequalities that exist; but I choose to fight those political battles as part of the Union, sharing the wealth created by the Union and for the benefit of all people within the Union. That is why I will be voting No on 18th September.

********

I guess if I apply the discipline of my own "Who Can We Trust" framework I'm a lone wolf. I don't expect you to share my conclusions without checking my bona fides and applying your own reasoning and possibly adding your own research to the information I've presented.  I've shown my workings so you can form your own view.

@kevverage  

**********

1.   It would be interesting to see a long-term analysis of money spent per capita on transport infrastructure in Scotland and compare to the same in rUK.  It's far from obvious to me (given Scotland's geographic diversity and low population density) that Scotland 'loses' by sharing all such infrastructure cost on a Union-wide basis.

Lies, Damn Lies & Cost Estimates

A brief post for a change, with some observations on the recent rather fraught debate about the "one-off costs" of independence.

Neither side has made (or at least shared) a robust analysis of the potential costs 

[Look out for "could be" and "up to" and "as little as" in the quotes below]

• HM Treasury has thrown around numbers based (explicitly) on some extremely crude assumptions (below from treasury press release)¹
• "Independent research ... estimates that it could cost up to 1% of a country's GDP" = £1.5bn
• 180 departments x £15m per department = "up to £2.7bn"  -- the sources of the £15m per department have distanced themselves from this way of using that figure
• UK government "has already published analysis which calculates that a new benefit system could cost £400m alone, and setting up a new tax system could be as much as £562m."  (I haven't yet chased down this analysis)
• The Scottish Government has not been forthcoming with any analysis of their own; ducking the question or leaning on others' estimates
• SNP Finance Minster John Swinney has resolutely refused to offer any figures -- hear him fail to answer the direct question thirteen times here
• In the recent kerfuffle - some say stramash - Lone Wolf² Prof Dunleavy has been cited as "estimating instead that the one-off set-up costs would be £150 to £200m" 
• The next day Alex Salmond claimed the costs "could be as little as £250m" citing "London School of Economics expert Patrick Dunleavy, who has put the cost at between £150m and £300m"
• There has been much noise made about the £575 - £625m figure apparently attributable to Swinney per the "leaked paper" below.  To be fair it is simply a "would on this basis be" estimate -- so if there were subsequent robust analysis leading to a different answer it would be reasonable to discard this early estimate. If. 
  
• ICAS are one of our RIBs (Respected Industry Bodies: See Who We Can Trust ... I rate RIBs above Lone Wolves) have said in Scotland's Tax Future: Taxes Explained
• "Examples from other countries can point towards the scale of costs which might be incurred. In New Zealand, for example, changes to the tax system which are less complex than those for an independent Scotland are costing around £750m. The cost for an independent Scotland could be significantly greater, especially considering the scale and the complexity of the legacy systems which might be inherited from the UK. What it is really going to be, and how it is to be paid for is a question that still needs to be answered"
• Note the quote above is referring to Tax systems only, not all government departments require

1. Those who accuse the treasury of "lies" are wide of the mark. If the Treasury had said "we've done thorough and detailed analysis" and then been discovered to have actually just multiplied 180 x £15m, well that would have been lying. In fact they showed their working - it was in the press release - the figure was presented with no pretence to being anything more than a "could be up to" estimate

2. By referring to Prof Dunleavy as a "Lone Wolf" I do not mean to imply he can't be trusted; just that his is one person's opinion and should be treated as such (rather than as "the truth" because he is "an expert"). I explain further here > Sources: Who Can We Trust

The lack of good analysis by HM Treasury is disappointing; but the failure of the Scottish Government to come up with any robustly substantiated figures this late in the day is, quite frankly, astounding.

Its worth remembering that we are discussing unknowns here, that there is no truth (or to paraphrase Foucault: truth is at best plural). All we can ask for is honestly realistic estimates; I doubt we will get that from either side.



It might inform the debate to consider how accurately these sort of costs estimates normally turn out in reality.  When was the last major public project you can remember that ended up costing less than the initial estimate?  I offer two (admittedly not strictly comparable) examples for contemplation ..

• Scottish Parliament Building:  Initial estimates £10 - 40m  ... final cost £414m
• Edinburgh Trams: initial estimate £375m ... final cost expected >£1bn

So my conclusion?  We don't know what the "one-off" costs of independence would be ... but we can safely assume it would be a lot more than the Scottish Government are admitting to.

Who can we Trust?

Summary
This page collates the main sources in the Scottish Referendum debate (with links to key documents) and prioritises them in descending order of objectivity

• Impartial Observers: IOs
• Respected Industry Bodies: RIBs
• Retained Advisers to Governement: RAGs
• Lone Wolves
• Campaigning Organisations & Groups: COGs

Framework
To help me sift and assess the mass of research, analysis and - most importantly - opinion available around the Independence referendum debate I decided I needed some sort of framework for working out what weight to give to what sources. This is a best-efforts basis attempt from somebody who is new to 'this sort of thing' so any constructive feedback would be highly welcomed.

With so many contradictory opinions out there it is self-evident they can't all be right and all opinions are not of equal worth.  People have a natural tendency to place more weight on opinions or pieces of analysis that support their intuitively preferred argument and less on those that don't. To help at least partially shield us from this tendency I propose the following categorisation of sources (and invite additions, amendments or proposed re-allocations)

Who Can We Trust: In descending order of objectivity;

Office for National Statistics (ONS) 

• Factual, historical data (not forecasts)
• Be wary of simplistic single measure comparisons (as I discuss here: GDP/Capita)

Impartial Observers: IOs 

Think of Jupiter's moon Io, orbiting the debate and with the benefit of distance possibly seeing a bigger picture than those mired in it

• What are they
• A broad church: Independent Research Groups and Fact Checkers, Non-Affiliated Think Tanks, Watchdogs & Ratings Agencies; Broadcasters
• Independent, evidence based, trusted and transparent
• Characterised by very measured, carefully worded statements and robustly researched analysis. Tend not to be headline seekers and are wary of accusations of bias. Rarely take "black & white" positions so expect plenty of caveats. If they do take a strong position it should carry considerable weight
• Look out for
• Their longevity (a decent indicator of their credibility)
• Either side selectively quoting them and twisting their message (quite easy as they tend to be employ plenty of caveats): go to the original reports or at least press releases wherever possible.
• Examples
• National Institute of Economic & Social Reserach (NIESR)
• Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS)
• Full Fact
• Credit Ratings Agencies (Moodys, Standard & Poors)
• Organisation for Economic Development (OECD)
• Relevant Reports / Recommended Reading
• NIESR
• Scotland's Lender of Last Resort Options
• Assets & Liabilities of Scottish Independence
• Commentary: Monetary Union & Fiscal Constraints
• Public Sector Debt, Borrowing, Taxation & Fiscal Rules
• Scotland's Currency Options
• Scottish Independence; the fiscal context
• IFS
• Spending cuts or tax increases would be needed to pay for Independence White Paper giveaways
• Fiscal Sustainability of an Independent Scotland
• The Fiscal Context for Scottish Independence
• Taxing an Independent Scotland
• CPPR
• Fiscal Implications for an Independent Scotland
• Analysis of Scotland’s Past and Future Fiscal Position
• Citigroup
• Scottish Independence Implications
• The Royal Society of Edinburgh
• Enlightening the Constitutional debate
• Full Fact
• Do Scots contribute more in Taxes than the rest of the UK?
• Scottish Opinion Polls
• How Crucial to Public Spending are Reliable Oil & Gas Receipts
• Will Scots face £1,000 in Extra Taxes Under Independence?
• Is Public Spending in Scotland Lower than the UK Average?
• Are nine out of Ten Scots a Burden on the State?
• Does Scotland Export Twice as much to England as it does to the rest of the World?
• Ratings Agencies
• Moody's: Scottish independence unlikely to have rating implications for UK sovereign
• S&P Warns of bank rating uncertainties in an Independent Scotland
• National Statistics (inc Forecasts): 
• Better Life Index (OECD) 
• Government Revenue & Expenditure Scotland (GERS)
• Channel 4 Fact Check
• Scotland's Oil Wealth
• General Indy Ref Facts
• Blackrock
• Investment & Independence: The Scottish Referendum

Respected Industry Bodies: RIBs

Think of them as forming the rib-cage, representing vital parts of the economic body

• What are they
• Long standing institutions who existed long before and expect to exist long after this specific debate
• Characterised by a need to be considered and balanced because the views of their members are very unlikely to be unanimously behind one position or the other
• Look out for
• The depth of their research; do they merely aggregate opinions or actually invest in primary research and analysis?
• Their funding: do they rely on donations from particular political parties, businesses or private individuals?
• Egos: how prominent is the leader's personality in their communications?
• Think of them as
• Organisations who have to be very careful before taking a position; if they do, its likely to be pretty well thought through
• Examples
• Confederation of British Industry (CBI) [have become clearly #No and tried to register as such with the electoral commission, but I place them here because of their long-standing credibility, breadth of representation and transparent governance structure]
• Institute of  Chartered Accountiants (ICAS)
• Relevant Reports / Recommended Reading
• ICAS
• Scotland's Tax Future
• CBI
• White Paper response
• Fact Sheets (clearly biased towards a #No conclusion)
• Federation of Small Businesses
• Your Business, Your Vote  which includes the following stunning (when you consider the question was not directly asked) snippet >
• "In the comments section of this question, 134 members volunteered that they would consider or would definitely be relocating their business outside of an independent Scotland, while a further 51 stated that they would look to close, downsize, sell, or retire early. This totals 185 respondents (10%) who would consider withdrawing their business from the Scottish economy"
• Weir Group
• Independence Report (commissioned from Oxford Economics)

Retained Advisers to Government: RAGs

Think of them as rags used by government to soak up data and from who they wring out answers. These bodies aim to provide independent & authoritative analysis but are often accused of losing objectivity because they serve a particular political master (the rag wringer!).

• Fiscal Commission Working Group (FCWG)
• Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) [many would argue they're an IO]
• HM Gov itself falls into this category I guess
• Scotland Analysis; Borders & Citizenship

Lone Wolves

Think of them circling the debate, jumping in to bite (often very powerfully) but normally not deigning to stay and fight if challenged.

• What are they
• Individuals, ostensibly objective and non-party aligned, relating their expert view
• Often academic, normally publicity seeking
• Look out for;
• Their ego; are they making bold, provocative statements or taking extreme positions to get "airtime"?
• Any perverse incentives: who has engaged them, are they being paid, do they have anything to gain by leaning for one side of the argument of the other?
• Remember they lack the intellectual checks & balances that wider bodies (should) have in place
• Their qualifications and experience; how relevant is it to the topic they are speaking on?
• Think of them as: 
• Not as someone who "must be right" but as an academic who has put a paper forward for peer review ... so check their peers' comments before concluding on the merit of their input.
• Think of climate change debate -- there have been plenty of "respetcted academic" climate change deniers 
• Examples:
• Graham Avery: 
• Scotland’s accession to the European Union
• I analyse in some depth here: Independent Scotland & the EU
• Prof David Simpson & Prof Jeremy Peat
• Scotland's Public Finances post-2014
• From a brief read it would appear to this casual observer that Prof David Simpson rather "goes off on one". I will try and find time to analyse in detail but he seems to be saying "we should have done what Norway did, it's not our fault we didn't therefore we don't accept any population share of the debt".  The fact that "we" took our share of the spend seems to be glossed over, and I will be discussing elsewhere what it would have cost us to pursue the Norway model, the sacrifices we would have had to make which, not to put too fine a pointon it: we didn't.  Prof Jeremy Peat's input is more measured and considered and - as a result - seems a more useful contribution to the wider currency debate.
• Jean-Claud Piris (former Legal Counsel of the European Council and of the EU Council and Director General of the Legal Service of the EU Council (1988-2010))
• Written Evidence to Scottish Parliament on Thursday 23rd January 2014
• Basically confirms that it will be very difficult for Scotland to negotiate to remain
• David Smith
• An Independent Scotland Risks a Greek Tragedy
• From the Unionist perspective
• Prof Adam Tomkins
• Prof Brian Ashcroft
• Sterling & Scottish Independence
• A Fiscal Dividend: UK Union or Scottish Independence
• Has Scotland Already Spent Its Oil Fund

Campaigning Organisations & Groups: COGs

Think of them as cogs in a gear-chain, often grinding against each other, rarely meshing but certainly capable of making a lot of noise

• What are they
• A collection of people who have gathered together united by a common interest and determined to push one side of the argument (often at all costs)
• Often "single issue" or "single perspective" focused
• Normally formed specifically to make noise in this debate and not too fussed about how they do it  (If they intend to spend more than £10,000 in doing so they must register with the electoral commission) 
• Look out for
• Who their members actually are, who actually drives the group, how credible is their claim to be "the voice for xxx"
• Are they the construct of a political party designed to gain "non-party aligned" credibilty for the party line?
• Do they provide reasoned and balanced arguments for their case, do they present evidence, are they open in their thought process ... or are they set on generating publicity for a particular view?
• What is their motivation, what drives them?
• Think of them as
• Groups who unashamedly argue one side of the case only: don't expect objectivity or reason, know that any data presented or quotes made are likely to be highly selective. Never take at face value anything they say (but of course you should try and fact check what they say).
• Examples
• The White Paper itself of course: Scotland's Future
• Registered with Electoral Commission as Permitted Participants (so permitted to spend >£10,000) as of 29/07/2014
• Better Together 2012 Ltd - No
• Better With Scotland - No
• Britannica (ex-BNP organiser) - No
• Business for Scotland Ltd - Yes (this is a very particular cabal, profiled in detail here.)
• Christians for Independence - Yes
• Conservative Party - No
• Cumbria Broadband Rural and Community Projects Limited - No
• English Democrats - Yes
• Farming for Yes
• Generation Yes
• GMB - No
• Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland - No
• Labour for Independence - Yes
• Labour Party - No
• Let's Stay Together - No
• Liberal Democrats - No
• Mr Alistair McConnachie (barred from UKIP for extreme views) - No
• Mr Angus MacDonald - No
• Mr Tony George Stevenson - No
• Mrs Sarah-Louise Bailey-Kelly - Yes
• National Collective (Artists and Creatives for Independence Limited) - Yes
• No Borders Campaign - No
• Racial Independence Campaign - Yes
• Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament - Yes
• Scottish Green Party - Yes
• Scottish Independence Convention - Yes
• Scottish National Party (SNP) - Yes
• Scottish Socialist Party - Yes
• Spirit of Independence - Yes
• Sterlingshire for No Thanks - No
• The Scottish Research Society - No
• Union of Shop, Distributive & Allied Workers (USDAW) - No
• Wealthy Nation - Yes
• WFS2014 Ltd (Working for Scotland) - No
• Wings Over Scotland - Yes
• Women for Independence - Yes
• Yes Scotland Limited - Yes

I suppose I should include these; but you've read them already, right?

• Union with England Act, 1707
• Scotland's Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland

The Referendum Debate: my Bona Fides

Those of you unfortunate enough to follow me on Twitter will have noticed me getting particularly exercised about the forthcoming Independence referendum. Twitter is a great medium, but the 140 Character constraint is not best suited to nuanced political debate or for making and substantiating sometimes complex arguments; that's why you've been directed here I guess.

For the purposes of this debate I would define myself as a Scottish-based entrepreneur.  I was born in England, moved to Islay when I was 9 years old and spent my high-school years there (I retain a smattering of Gaelic as a result). I studied at Strathclyde University then worked in London and briefly the US before returning to Scotland in 2002 to pursue my entrepreneurial ambitions.  I consider Scotland to be "where I come from" and I chose to return here because I love it, it's where I want to spend the rest of my life.

You'll see links on this blog to the companies I'm involved with.  M8 Group (www.petplanet.co.uk & www.greenfingers.com) and Endura are both successful Scottish based SMEs with turnover in the tens of £m's and enjoying healthy growth (both were previously Sunday Times Fast Track 100 listed). We employ nearly 200 people in the Livingston area as well as others in China and (in Endura's case) throughout the world.  It's relevant to my perspectives in this debate that we are exporters of physical goods; the Scottish market represents only about 5% of our combined turnover and in M8 Group's case c.90% of our sales are to customers in rUK ("rest of the UK").

I make no apologies for the fact that I have been inspired to speak out in this debate because, along with my fellow shareholders, we have carefully considered and researched the impact that an independent Scotland would have on our business and concluded it would be "a bad thing" for us and, by extension, our employees. I know many similar businesses feel the same way but are afraid to speak up for fear of a Nationalist backlash; in our case we have concluded that we have a moral duty to share our analysis with our employees and (at the risk of sounding pompous) anybody else who has the curiosity to have found their way to these pages.

I will try and keep this blog rational and level headed, to focus on factual points as far as possible because I think that is the most useful way I can contribute to the debate. That approach may be why I have been accused on Twitter of arguing out of self-interest (ironically from people arguing for "self-determination"); again I make no apologies for that given part of the "self-interest" is wanting my businesses to continue to thrive whilst remaining based in Scotland.  But let me be absolutely clear about this: as far as "self-interest" is concerned I am socialist in outlook and believe in wealth redistribution; I have never voted for a tax cuts or out of narrow self-interest.

I should also be clear that I am emotionally, instinctively, intuitively in favour of retaining the Union, my heart is against separatism.  I will attempt to focus on arguments of the head but I can't promise I will always succeed in keeping my heart out of it.

Addendum
Before being inspired to by the Referendum Debate, I hadn't been active on this blog for a while. Scrolling through I realise now that a (completely non-political, possibly slightly mawkish) post I wrote over a year inadvertently explains some of the reasons why I love this country. If you need a light sorbet as relief from the political stodge, you can read it here